Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout25 SIGN CODE EXCEP 09-06-94AGENDa____ DATE:~ SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 Inter-Corn NO. 25 9-6-94 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTONt CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPEAL OF SIGN CODE EXCEPTION 94-003 TAYLOR - TAYLOR'S RESTAURANT) (APPLICANT: MR. WILLIAM RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Sign Code Exception 94-003 by adopting Resolution No. 94-111, as submitted or revised. FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts associated with this application as this is an applicant initiated project. BACKGROUND On August 8, 1994 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3294 (Attachment A) denying Sign Code Exception 94-003. The request is to permit an exception from Tustin City Code Section 9403hd, which requires supplemental signage to be subordinate to business identification and limits supplemental signage to 25 percent of the allowable sign area. The result of the exception would be to approve the new "BURGERS" sign copy at Taylor's Restaurant located at 1542 E1 Camino Real. On August 9, 1994, the Community Development Department received a letter from the applicant requesting an appeal of the Planning Commission decision (Attachment B). This item does not require a public hearing therefore no public notice was transmitted. The applicant was notified of the agendized item and a staff report was made available prior to the Planning Commission meeting. DISCUSSION During the tornado that swept through the City in February, the "Taylor's" sign copy on the roof of the existing Taylor's restaurant was destroyed. The "Taylor's" sign copy had identified Taylor's Restaurant since 1973. The smaller sign which read "coffee shop" beneath the "Taylor's" sign was also destroyed. The can sign with the copy stating "open" beneath the "Taylor's" and "coffee shop" can signs was untouched, as were the large, white City Council Report Sign Code Exception 94-003 September 6, 1994 Page 2 letters on the mansard roof stating "open 24 hours," "arcade," "restaurant" and "dinning" [sic]. The owner of the restaurant contracted with a sign contractor to replace the damaged "Taylors" and "coffee shop" plastic sign faces. The upper sign copy was replaced with "BURGERS" in red letters, and the smaller sign was replaced with "coffee shop" in green letters. Prior to completing the work, however, the sign contractor failed to complete design review and obtain a sign permit from the City of Tustin Community Development Department as required by Section 9403 of the Tustin Sign Code. On February 9, 1994, the City's Code Enforcement Officer notified the manager of the restaurant that a sign permit is required for face changes, and that the manager should submit the sign plans to the Community Development Department in order to obtain a sign permit. The owner of Taylor's Restaurant submitted sign plans and photographs (Attachment C) to the Community Development Department showing the sign before the tornado, after the tornado, and after the face change, in order to obtain necessary permits. Upon completing design review of the plans, staff determined that the roof sign was an existing non-conforming sign. Section 9402 states "a non-conforming sign is a sign erected legally which does not comply with the most current adopted sign restriction and regulation." Although the sign was permitted in 1973, roof signs are now prohibited by the current Sign Code and business identifi- cation signs are limited to 75 square feet in area. Sign Code Section 9405e (Non-conforming Signs) would allow only copy changes to non-conforming signs. In April, the applicant forwarded a letter to the city to clarify his actions (Attachment D). He stated that because he constructed the sign and received a Use and Occupance Permit for his restaurant in 1973, he believed that the face change to the sign was subject to the provisions of the 1970 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Pursuant to Section 301 of the 1991 Uniform Administrative Code however, no structure shall be altered, repaired, improved etc., unless a separate appropriate permit for each structure has been obtained from the Building Official (Ordinance 1043 adopted by the Tustin City Council on February 5, 1990). Simply stated, modifica- cations to any existing structure are subject to the regulation of the 1991 Uniform Building Code, regardless of when the structure was erected and/or formally approved. The purpose of requiring conformance with the regulations of the 1991 UBC is to City Council Report Sign Code Exception 94-003 September 6, 1994 Page 3 minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare. The applicant's letter also referred to the portion of the UBC regarding signs (now referred to as the 1991 Uniform Sign Code, and also adopted through Ordinance 1043 by the Tustin City Council). Pursuant to Section 303 of the Uniform Sign Code, changing of the advertising copy is exempt from the permit requirement. Therefore, the applicant is correct in stating that the requested face change is exempt from the requirements of the 1991 Uniform Building Code and 1991 Uniform Sign Code, and that no building permits are required. However, Tustin Sign Code Section 9403a states that a sign permit shall be received from the Department of Community Development prior to altering any sign including change of copy on cabinet signs (also part of the Tustin City Code as adopted by Ordinance No. 1077 by the Tustin City Council on October 21, 1991). This requirement is in addition to the requirements of the UBC and Uniform Sign Code, and is required specifically to ensure conformance with the sign copy requirements of the Tustin Sign Code. Without the requirements of Tustin Sign Code Section 9403a, any existing sign face copy could be modified with no review of copy and design. Accordingly, the Code requires the applicant to complete a sign permit application for sign face or copy changes. The applicant's letter, written in April, also stated that "the city has been unfair". As previously discussed above, the existing roof mounted sign is non-conforming as defined by the Sign Code. Since the face change is subject to a sign permit, it is required to meet the requirements of the Sign Code which allows the use of signs for business identification but restricts supplemental signage to 25% of the allowable area of the sign. By replacing business identification (Taylor's) with supplemental signage ("BURGERS") the existing non-conforming sign was made more non- conforming. To make the "BURGERS" face change conforming, a sign code exception Would be required. The Community Development Department is required to administer the Sign Code in an equitable manner so the purpose of the Sign Code, which is to promote effective business identification through the regulation and design, of signs may be achieved. As all signage in the City is subject to the requirements of the Sign Code, staff believes that the City has been fair in enforcing the Sign Code in this case, and has been fair in processing the applicant's request for a sign code exception. City Council Report Sign Code Exception 94-003 September 6, 1994 Page 4 The applicant requests a sign code exception from Section 9403hd of the Sign Code which requires that supplemental signage be subordinate to business identification and no more than 25% of the total allowable sign area. The subject sign can containing the "BURGERS" sign is 32 feet long by 5 feet high, a total of 160 square feet. As supplemental signage is permitted to be a maximum of 25% of the allowable sign area, 40 square feet would be permitted for supplemental signage. Supplemental signage is defined as identification of product, trade and service information. Pursuant to Sign Code Section 9405c, the Planning Commission denied the Sign Code Exceptions based on the following required findings: Si~n size and placement of the Sign Code shall be as closely followed as practicable; This criteria does not apply to the subject request as the subject sign is existing non-conforming and no changes to the location or size of the sign are requested. However, if the applicant were requesting new signage at the location, the Sign Code would limit the signage to the following permitted and conditionally permitted signs: A freeway oriented pole sign may be permitted with a conditional use permit. Said sign could be a maximum of 24 feet in height, and fifty square feet in size. One primary wall or canopy sign would be permitted for the purpose of business identification only (25% of the sign could be supplemental sign copy). This primary sign could be a maximum of 75 square feet in area. Two secondary wall or canopy signs would be permitted on a side wall or other non-primary wall, one sign per elevation. Secondary signs are permitted to be a maximum of 25 square feet. The intent and purpose of the sign regulations of the land use zone in which the sign is to be located shall be followed as closely as practicable; The purpose of the Sign Code is to promote community identity and effective business identification through the regulation and design of signs. One intention of the City Council Report Sign Code Exception 94-003 September 6, 1994 Page 5 Sign Code is to maintain and enhance the quality of the City's appearance by avoiding sign clutter, and to regulate the number of signs according to standards consistent with the type of establishment in each zoning district which are appropriate to the type of activity to which they pertain or to the business which they identify. Again, the subject sign is non-conforming, and cannot be required to be removed from the roof or reduced in size. However, the intention of the Sign Code is to reduce sign clutter, and adequate identification of product, trade and service information is already provided in the "open 24 hours," "arcade," "coffee shop", "open", "restaurant" and "family dinning" [sic] supplemental signs; and business identification (i.e. "Taylors") would be more appropriate, making the signage at the restaurant less non-conforming to the intent of the Sign Code. There are special circumstances unique to ~he property to justify the exception; The property has been affected by the freeway expansion, and according to the applicant, this freeway widening has cost him 40% of his sales, presumably rendering him unable to finance another copy change back to "Taylors". However, the new sign copy was installed without the benefit of any permits as required by the Sign Code. If an application was submitted for review prior to the installation, appropriate sign copy could have been designed and approved, avoiding any additional expense. Granting of the exception will not have a negative impact on surrounding properties; Granting this exception would have a negative impact on the amount of sign clutter at the location, as it would increase the amount of supplemental signage. Granting the exception would also allow the business owner special privileges not permitted to other surrounding businesses. O~her businesses in the area must comply with Section 9403hd requiring signs to contain only the information that is necessary to identify the business and that supplemental signage be subordinate to business identification. city Council Report Sign Code Exception September 6, 1994 Page 6 94-003 The sign application promotes the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community and that the granting of the exception meets the findings and intent of this chapter. As previously discussed, the subject sign is a face change of an existing roof sign only. Building permits were issued at the time of the sign's construction in 1973, and the sign was inspected for code compliance, therefore, the sign structure does not pose a threat to the public health safety or welfare. However, as the purpose of the Sign Code is to promote community identity and effective business identification through the regulation and design of signs, this request to deviate from the Sign Code would not be consistent with the aesthetics of the community, because it would promote sign clutter. Hence, granting of the exception would not meet the findings and intent of the Sign Code. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Sign Code Exception 94-003. Be~.y~tone A~ant Planner BS: br \sce94D03. bs Attachments: Chris%ine ~. Sh~gleton Assistant Cit~anager Location map Attachment A - Planning Commission Resolution 3294 Attachment B - Appeal letter Attachment C - Photographs Attachment D - Applicant's letter City Resolution No. 94-11 LOCATION MAP NO SCALE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 3294 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING SIGN CODE EXCEPTION 94-003 REQUESTING AN EXCEPTION FROM TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 9403HD REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL SIGNAGE TO BE SUBORDINATE TO BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION, AND TO ALLOW SUPPLEMENTAL SIGNAGE TO EXCEED 25 PERCENT OF THE ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA FOR A COPY CHANGE TO THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING ROOF SIGN LOCATED AT 1542 EL CAMINO REAL. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That a proper application for Sign Code Exception 94-003 was filed by William Taylor requesting a sign code exception from Section 9403hd of the Tustin City Code for a copy change to the existing non-conforming roof sign on the building located at 1542 E1 Camino Real. Pursuant to City of Tustin Sign Code Section 9405c, denial of the request to authorize an exception to the Sign Code to allow a sign to display only supplemental signage, thus exceeding the 25% of the allowable sign area cannot be supported by the following findings: The intent and purpose of the siqn requlations of the land use zone in which the sian is to be located are not followed as closely as Dossible. The purpose of the Sign Code is to promote community identity and effective business identification through the regulation and design of signs. One intention of the Sign Code is to maintain and enhance the quality of the City's appearance by avoiding sign clutter and to regulate the number of signs according to standards consistent with the type of establishment in each zoning district which are appropriate to the type of activity of which they pertain or to ~he business which they identify. Therefore, adequate identification of product, trade and service information is already provided in the multiple supplemental signs existing at the location including "Open 24 hours", "arcade" "coffee shop" "open" "restaurant" and "family dinning" [sic]. Further supplemental signage would increase sign clutter and would contradict the intent of the Sign Code. Attnnhm .nt A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 x5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 _8 Resolution 3294 Page 2 There are no special circumstances unique to the property to justify the exception. The property has been affected by the freeway expansion and according to the applicant this freeway widening has cost him 40% of his sales. However, the new sign copy was installed without the benefit of any permits as required by the Sign Code. If an application had been submitted for review prior to the installation, appropriate sign copy could have been designed and approved, avoiding any additional expense, therefore, no special circumstances justify th~ sign code exception request. Grantinq the exception will have a neqativm .impact on surroundinq properties. Granting the exception would have a negative impact on the amount of sign clutter at the location as it would increase the amount of supplemental signage. Granting the exception would also allow the business owner special privileges not permitted to other surrounding businesses. Other businesses in the area must comply with Section 9403hd requiring signs to contain only the information that is necessary to identify the business and that supplemental signage be subordinate to business identification. The siqn application does not promote public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community and the qrantinq of exception meets the findinqs and intent of this chapter.- As the purpose of the Sign Code is to promote community identity and effective business identification through the regulation and design of signs, this request to deviate from the sign code is inconsistent with the aesthetics of the community because it would promote sign clutter. II. The Planning Commission hereby denies Sign Code Exception 94-003 requesting a Sign Code Exception from Section 9403hd of the Tustin City Code for a copy change on the existing non-cgnforming roof sign located at 1542 E1 Camino Real and authorizes Community Development Department staff to pursue code enforcement action. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution 3294 Page 3 PkSSED AND ADOPTED Tustin, Recording Secretary by the Planning Commission of the City of at a regular meeting on the 8th day of August, 1994. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3294 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 8th day of August, 1994. Recording Secretary C August 9, 1994 William Taylor 1542 E1 Camino Real Tustin, California 92680 The City of Tustin City Council RE: Appeal of Resolution 3294 C Dear Members of the City Council, Please take notice that I hereby appeal your decision on Resolution 3294, and request that a public hearing be held. My appeal is based upon the following: 1) The City Council subject matters. State regulated ordinances. lacks jurisdiction of the Such jurisdiction lies with laws and not with City 2) Denial of Constitutional rights. 3) The City Council was provided information that was incomplete and untrue. I am attempting to resolve this matter in a peaceful way. I ask the City Council to provide me with a public hearing so that I may be heard. Attached for your consideration is a copy of part of the 1970 Uniform Building Sign Code, Section S-303. Very truly yours, William Taylo~ ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C April-12, 1994 Bill Taylor 1542 E1 Camino Real Tustin, California 92680 _ RECEIVED ~ I 11994 City Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Tustin, California 92680 Dear City Manager, I am directing this correspondence to your attention in an attempt to resolve a matter which concerns an event regarding my sign. INTRODUCTION: On February 7, 1994, according to the Orange 'County Register, a "freak wind storm" brought devastation to parts of Orange County. Tustin was one area where high winds caused extensive damage. My business was directly in the path of the high winds, and I suffered loss to my roof top sign. The sign was repaired by a State Licensed Sign Contractor. This is where the problem starts. The repairs were completed on the sign on or about February 28, 1994. Soon after your Code Enforcer and a uniformed Police Officer came into my establishment and informed me the sign would have to be taken down. The reason stated by the Code Enforcer, "it did not comply to the City Ordinance for signs, further, it was stated that a sign permit was not obtained to repair the sign. After explaining the wind destroyed the display surface, and a new piece of plastic was installed in the same frame, and the only thing that changed was the wording on the display surface. I was instructed to take the original sign plans, and the new measurements of the new plastic to the City to prove my allegations ~hat the sign (sign structure) was ~he original, i also submitted to the City pictures o~ the sign before wind damage, pictures' before the new sign display surface was installed, and pictures after the new sign display surface was installed. The original sign display surface displayed the name of "Taylors", the sign now displays the name "BURGERS". ATTAC;HMENT D page two Bill Taylor April 12, 1994 After complying to the wishes of what was imposed upon me, I then received a telephone call stating, "the sign does not meet our standards and will need to be changed back to read Taylors." I then suggested changing the name of the business to Burgers. This action would be less expensive that changing the sign display surface. The Planner agreed with me by stating, "that is a real good idea", he then informed me I would need to file a Fictitious Name Statement with the County of Orange." He gave me an address and a telephone number for me to contact. When I was informed by your Code Enforcer that the sign had to come downs, I feel that such action was strong measures. With respects to the permit, when the sign was repaired, California license sign contractor. By employing contractor, I presumed he would perform all requirement by law. we hired a a license imposed I would like to state for the record, I received my Use and Occupancy Permit in 1973, at which time the 1970 Uniform Building Code was in effect according to the Orange County Building Department. Further, during this period of time Tustin had a contractual agreement with Orange County to perform building requirements. I would like to direct your attention to Section 104, Subsection (g) of the 1970 Uniform Building Code. This Section mandates the requirements of buildings in existence, this clause is the same requirements set forth in the 1973 Uniform Building Code (1973 Uniform Building Code was adopted by Orange County in 1974), and all Codes that followed. In addition, Section 104, subsection (c) strictly outlines nonstructural alterations and repairs. The repairs to thc sign in February 1994 cost five thousand ($5,000.00). This figurc, along with zegular maintenance cost is far less than 25% of the cost of the structure, as cited by the 1970 Uniform Building Ccde. Page three Bill Taylor April 12, 1994 Further, I would like to call your attention to the 1970 Uniform Building Code, Volume V, Signs. Again this part of the Uniform Building Code was in effect when the Use and Occupancy Permit was issued. Section S-205 defines the meaning of the plastic display Display Surface is the area made available by the sign structure for the purpose of displaying the advertising message. I operate a restaurant, I am advertising what I sell to increase revenue during this difficult time period. Events in the past, and the events that surround the present situation, I feel the City has been unfair. I feel the Code Enforce over looked the requirements of when the Use and Occupancy Permit was issued. I am sure it was an oversight in the requirements that is set forth in the Uniform Building Code with respects to repairs of the sign. I am aware that a problem may exist by the sign contractor not taking out a sign permit for repairs, I will contact him and instruct him to correct this problem~ I would like to resolve this dilemma peacefully. I would appreciate your help in reaching harmony. I would appreciate your informing your subordinates to enforce the appropriate laws which govern. If a meeting is necessary to resolve the problems at hand, I am willing to do what ever it takes to bring about a peaceful end. know with your intervention in this matter that this problem will be resolved. I want to express my appreciation for your help. Please contact me mnd in,cfm me as to what woul0 be requJ, re0 of me to correct this situation. Very truly yours, Bill Taylor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 - 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 94-111 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF, THE CITY OF TUSTIN, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COM~ISSION'S DENIAL OF SIGN CODE EXCEPTION 94-003 REQUESTING AN EXCEPTION FROM TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 9403HD REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL SIGNAGE TO BE SUBORDINATE TO BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION, AND TO ALLOW SUPPLEMENTAL SIGNAGE TO EXCE.ED 25 PERCENT OF THE ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA FOR A COPY CHANGE TO THE EXISTING NON- CONFORMING ROOF SIGN LOCATED AT 1542 EL CAMINO REAL. The City Council finds and determines as follows: That a proper application for Sign Code Exception 94-003 was filed by William Taylor requesting a sign code exception from Section 9403hd of the Tustin City Code for a copy change to the existing non-conforming roof sign on the building located at 1542 E1 Camino Real. Bo Pursuant to City of Tustin Sign Code Section 9405c, denial of the request to authorize an exception to the Sign Code to allow a sign to display only supplemental signage, thus exceeding the 25% of the allowable sign area cannot be supported by the following findings: The intent and purpose of the siqn requlation~. of the land use zone in which the siqn is be located are not followed as closely ~ The purpose of the Sign Code is to promote community identity and effective business identification through the regulation and design of signs. One intention of the Sign Code is to maintain and enhance the quality of the City's appearance by avoiding sign clutter and to regulate the number of signs according to standards consistent with the type of establishment in each zoning district which are appropriate to the type of activity of which they pertain or to the business which they identify. Therefore, adequate identification of product, trade and service information is already provided in the multiple supplemental signs exist.ing at the location including "Open 24 hours", "arcade" "coffee shop" "open" "restaurant" and "family dinning,, [sic]. Further supplemental signage would increase sign clutter and would contradict the intent of the Sign Code. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Resolution 94-111 Page 2 There are no special circumstances unique ~h~ property to justify the exception. The property has been affected by the freeway expansion and according to the applicant this freeway widening has cost him 40% of his sales. However, the new sign copy was installed without the benefit of any permits as required by the Sign Code. If an application had been submitted for review prior to the installation, appropriate sign copy could have been designed and approved, avoiding any additional expense, therefore, no special circumstances justify the sign code exception request. 3 o ~rantinq the exception will have a neqatiw. impact on surroundinq properties. Granting the exception would have a negative impact on the amount of sign clutter at the location as it would increase the amount of supplemental signage. Granting the exception would also allow the business owner special privileges not permitted to other surrounding businesses. Other businesses in the area must comply with Section 9403hd requiring signs to contain only the information that is necessary to identify the business and that supplemental signage be subordinate to business identification. The siqn application does not promote thc. public health, safety, welfare and aesthetic~ Df the community and the ~rantinq of th~ exception meets the findinqs and intent o~ ~his cha ter. As the purpose of the Sign Code is to promote community identity and effective business identification through the regulation and design of signs, this request to deviate from the sign code is inconsistent with the aesthetics of the community because it would promote sign clutter. II. The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission,s denial of Sign Code Exception 94-003 requesting a Sign Code Exception from Section 9403hd of the Tustin City Code for a copy change on the existing non-conforming roof sign located at 1542 E1 Camino Real and authorizes Community Development Department staff to pursue code enforcement action. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution 94-111 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Council, held on the 6th dgy of September, 1994. Tustin City THOMAS R. SALTARELLI Mayor Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS CERTIFICATION FoR RESOLUTION NO. 94-111 MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 94-111 was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of September, 1994. COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER:ABSENT: